Residents press Port Angeles council on vehicle purchases, waterfront consulting fees, right-of-way permit and bike-lane plans

PORT ANGELES — Multiple residents used the city’s public-comment periods at the March council meeting to press elected officials on spending priorities, permitting fees and local transportation projects, raising questions the council said staff would follow up on.

James Taylor, a Port Angeles resident, criticized vehicle purchases listed on the consent agenda and urged the council to stagger replacements. “There are 4 vehicles in this proposal, ... I challenge you to go look at your odometers and ask if your vehicles are obsolete,” Taylor said, noting two vehicles with roughly 63,000 miles and arguing those purchases could be postponed so costs are spread across years.

Justin Williamson, identified as a city occupant, asked for a breakdown of $54,000 listed as “miscellaneous consulting fees” on a waterfront-district expenditure report and requested details on hourly rates and how funds are distributed.

John Ralston, a resident who spoke twice during the meeting, questioned the vehicle choices on the agenda, calling out a Ford F-150 Lightning on the list and urging council to consider higher-rated EV alternatives or high-quality used vehicles. He also raised a broader concern about future federal funding flows to states and localities.

Steve Brown, a resident at 622 South Valley Street, challenged a right-of-way use permit he received for $570.60 covering 35 feet by 200 feet of Seventh Street and asked about an appeal process, telling council that his prior fee had been roughly $225–$230 and that the new charge felt excessive. Council staff said someone would be in touch with him about the ability to appeal.

Other public commenters addressed zoning, subdivision fees and bike-lane planning. A speaker argued that current fees on vacant land and higher costs for lot division can discourage subdivision and reduce density; the speaker urged changes during the comprehensive-plan process to encourage development where infrastructure permits. Another commenter expressed concerns about consistency and scope of a bike-lane/paving project on Eighth Street, suggesting alternative routing and funding sources.

Resident Glenn Barbieri said he was shifting toward advisory civic involvement and offered to provide a draft letter and, separately, a potential donation to the city for review of ideas; city staff said they would check on the acceptability of the offer and follow up.

Why it matters: residents’ remarks touched on fiscal transparency (waterfront district consulting fees), permit fairness (right-of-way fees), long-term planning decisions (subdivision incentives) and transportation planning priorities (bike lanes), issues the council and staff said would be addressed in follow-up work and during the comprehensive-plan process.

Council response and follow up: staff acknowledged questions and said they would follow up with individual residents (for example, on appeal options for the right-of-way fee and a more detailed breakdown of waterfront-district expenditures). The council did not take formal action on the public comments during the meeting.